Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson do not represent Georgians
Some how, back in October when this passed through the Senate 68-30 it didn’t make as much news as it does today with getting signed into law. Now it is hitting a lot of our radars. Maybe it wasn’t so much news then because it passed, but the news today is that 30 male republican senators voted against it.
I read through Sen. Franken’s amendment (SA.2588) to the FY2010 Defense Appropriations Bill. It says it will stop funding defense contractors who deny sexual assault victims access to courts through arbitration clauses in their employment contracts. Please go read it for yourself, but my understanding is that the amendment says in cases of rape, assault, harrasment and so on, alledged victims would have access to real courts instead of corporately run and funded arbitrations.
From Sen. Al Franken’s Website on the inspiration behind the amendment:
Jones was a 19-yr-old employee of defense contractor KBR (formerly a Halliburton subsidiary) stationed in Iraq who was gang raped by her co-workers and imprisoned in a shipping container when she tried to report the crime. Her father and U.S. Rep. Ted Poe (R-Tex.), worked together to secure her safe return to the United States, but once she was home, she learned a fine-print clause in her KBR contract banned her from taking her case to court, instead forcing her into an “arbitration” process that would be run by KBR itself.Odds are you’ve already agreed to an arbitration agreement. If you had to fill out a job application or sign a contract before starting your job, odds are you’ve agreed to settle any grievances against your employer through an arbitration service which your employer pays for. Unlike civil courts, arbitration settlements cannot be appealed and are much cheaper. With the money for the service coming from the employer and the sole purpose of the service aimed at reducing litigation expences for the employer, many believe they tend to rule in favor of the employer. In a nut shell, this is an example of corporate interests superceding the interests of individuals. In a tighter nut shell, 30 republican senators attempted to use their elected offices to deny access to courts, even in cases of rape, in litigation against federal governement contractors.
I was stunned to find both the senators from my state, Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson, were among the 30 who voted against this amendment. Their Websites and other sources do little to explain the reasoning behind their decision.
I honestly thought there might have been some earmark in the bill they opposed or that the amendment was part of some other legislation they opposed. The only argument I’ve been able to find so far is the nay-voters opposed government’s interference of private business policies.
From The Huffington Post on Jon Stewart’s piece “Rape-Nuts”:
This year, Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) proposed an amendment that would deny defense contracts to companies that ask employees to sign away the right to sue. It passed, but it wasn’t the slam dunk Jon Stewart expected. Instead the amendment received 30 nay votes all from Republicans. “I understand we’re a divided country, some disagreements on health care. How is ANYONE against this?” He asked. He went on to show video of Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) Aguing that it’s not the government’s place to decide who the government does business with and juxtaposed that with Republican sentiment on how the government should deal with ACORN. “I guess it’s an efficiency thing. You don’t want to waste tax-payer money giving it to someone who advises fake prostitutes how to commit imaginary crimes, you want to give it to Halliburton because they’re committing real gang rape.”| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Rape-Nuts | ||||
|
||||
The passage of this amendment is clearly an instance of the government protecting the rights (and health & safety) of individuals. In this instance, however, their rights are being protected against big business.
I prefer to think of republicans as proponents of fiscal responsibility, free markets and smaller government, but these 30 guys clearly represent the worst of part of the republican party: the part that defends the wealthy and powerful against the interests and rights of everyone else.
